PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES

Transcription

1

2 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES

3 Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi Website : : rstrg@sansad.nic.in

4 CONTENTS PAGE 1. Definition and Scope of Privilege Main Privileges of Parliament Breach of Privilege and Contempt of Parliament Power of Parliament to punish for Contempt Freedom of Speech Parliamentary Privileges and the Press Privilege of Freedom from arrest or molestation Use of Handcuffs Points of Propriety Questions of Privilege and working of Committee of Privileges Procedure when a Breach of Privilege is committed by a Member of the other House

5 DEFINITION AND SCOPE OF PRIVILEGE Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of Parliament and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, efficiently and effectively, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. When any of these rights and immunities, both of the members, individually, and of the assembly in its collective-capacity which are known by the general name of privileges, are disregarded or attacked by any individual or authority, the offence is called a breach of privilege, and is punishable under the law of Parliament. Articles 105/194 of the Constitution deal with the powers, privileges and immunities of Members of Parliament/State Legislatures and their House, Members and Committees. Each House also claims the right to punish actions which, while not breaches of any specific privilege, are offences against its authority or dignity, such as disobedience to its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its officers or its members. Such actions, though called ''breaches of privilege'' are more properly distinguished as "contempts". 2. Article 105 of the Constitution of India which provides for the powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses of Parliament and of the Members and the Committee thereof reads as follows: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament. (2) No Member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any Committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings. (3) In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament and of the members and the Committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and until so defined, shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before the coming 1

6 2 into force of section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, (4) The provisions of clauses (1), (2) and (3) shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this Constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of a House of Parliament or any Committee thereof as they apply in relation to Members of Parliament. 3. The corresponding provisions relating to the powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses of State Legislatures and of the Members and Committees thereof are contained in Article 194 of the Constitution which are in identical terms to those in Article 105 relating to Parliament. 4. Section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 came into force with effect from the 20th June, Prior to that, clause (3) of Article 105 provided that "in other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the Members and the Committees of each House, shall be such as from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and, until so defined, shall be those of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its Members and Committees, at the commencement of the Constitution i.e. on the 26th January, 1950". No law has so far been enacted by Parliament (and State Legislatures) in pursuance of clause (3) of Articles 105/194 of the Constitution to define the powers, privileges and immunities of each House and of the Members and the Committees thereof. In the absence of any such law, therefore, the powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses of Parliament and State Legislatures and of the Members and the Committees thereof continue in actual practice to be governed by the precedents of the British House of Commons as they existed on the date our Constitution came into force. 5. It may be observed that Article 105(3) stipulates that Parliament may from time to time define its privileges by law and it has been urged particularly by the Press that there should be codification of the law of privilege so as to make the position clear and free from ambiguity. The question of undertaking legislation on the subject has also engaged the attention of the Presiding Officers of Parliament and State Legislatures in India since The dominant view, however, has all along been that any codification is more likely to harm the prestige and sovereignty of Parliament/State Legislatures without any benefit being conferred on the Press and that in the present circumstances, codification of Parliamentary privileges is neither necessary nor desirable.

7 MAIN PRIVILEGES OF PARLIAMENT 6. Some of the more important privileges of each House of Parliament and of its Members and Committees are as follows: (i) Freedom of Speech in Parliament [of Article 105(1) of the Constitution]. (ii) Immunity to a Member from any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any Committee thereof [of Article 105(2) of the Constitution]. (iii) Immunity to a person from proceedings in any court in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings [of Article 105(2) of the Constitution]. (iv) Prohibition on the courts to inquire into proceedings of Parliament [of Article 122 of the Constitution]. (v) Freedom from arrest of members of civil cases during the continuance of the Session of the House and forty days before its commencement and forty days after its conclusion (of Section 135 of the Code of Civil Procedure). (vi) Right of the House to receive immediate information of the arrest, detention, conviction, imprisonment and release of Member (of Rules 222A and 222B of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Rajya Sabha). (vii) Prohibition of arrest and service of legal process within the precincts of the House without obtaining the permission of the Chairman/Speaker. (viii) Prohibition of disclosure of the proceedings or decision of a secret sitting of the House. (ix) Members or officers of the House cannot give evidence or produce documents in courts of law, relating to the proceedings of the House without the permission of the House (of First Report of Committee of Privileges of Rajya Sabha presented to the House on the 1st May, 1958). (x) Members or officers of the House cannot attend as a witness before the other House or a Committee thereof or before a House of State Legislature or a Committee thereof without the permission of the House and they 3

8 4 cannot be compelled to do so without their consent (of Sixth Report of Committee of Privileges of Second Lok Sabha, adopted by Lok Sabha on the 17th December, 1958 and Thirty-Third Report of the Committee of Privileges of Rajya Sabha, adopted by the House on 30th March, 1993). (xi) All Parliamentary Committees are empowered to call for persons, papers and records relevant for the purposes of the inquiry by a Committee. A witness may be summoned by a Parliamentary Committee who may be required to produce such documents as are required for the use of a Committee. (xii) The evidence tendered before a Parliamentary Committee and its report and proceedings cannot be disclosed or published by anyone until these have been laid on the Table of the House. 7. In addition to the above-mentioned privileges and immunities, each House also enjoys certain consequential powers necessary for the protection of its privileges and immunities. These powers are as follows: (i) to commit persons, whether they are Member or not, for breach of privilege or contempt of the House; (ii) to compel the attendance of witnesses and to call for papers and records; (iii) to regulate its own procedure and the conduct of its business (of Article 118 of the Constitution); (iv) to prohibit the publication of its debates and proceedings; (v) to exclude strangers from the House.

9 BREACH OF PRIVILEGE AND CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT 8. When any individual or authority disregards or attacks any of the privileges, rights and immunities, either of the Members individually or of the House in its collective capacity, the offence is called a breach of privilege and is punishable by the House. Besides, actions in the nature of offences against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience to its legitimate orders or libels upon itself, its Members, Committees or officers also constitute breach of privilege. 9. Contempt of the House may be defined generally as "any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency directly or indirectly, to produce such results". It may be stated that it is not possible to enumerate exhaustively every act which might be construed by the House as a contempt of the House. Some of the important types of contempt of Parliament are, however, mentioned below: (i) Speeches or writings reflecting on the House, its Committees or Members; (ii) Reflections on the character and impartiality of the Chairman/Speaker in the discharge of his duty; (iii) Publication of false or distorted report of the Proceedings of the House; (iv) Publication of expunged proceedings of the House; (v) Publication of proceedings of secret Sessions of the House; (vi) Pre-mature publication of proceedings, evidence or report of a Parliamentary Committee; (vii) Reflections on the report of a Parliamentary Committee; (viii) Molestation of Members on account of their conduct in the House or obstructing Members while in the performance of their duties as Members or while on their way to or coming after, attending the House or a Committee thereof; 5

10 6 (ix) Offering bribes to Members to influence them in their Parliamentary conduct; (x) Intimidation of Members in connection with their Parliamentary conduct; (xi) Any misconduct or undignified behaviour on the part of a Member, such as, corruption in the execution of his office as Member, disorderly and undignified conduct contrary to the usage or inconsistent with accepted standards of Parliamentary conduct; (xii) Obstructing or molesting officers of the House in the discharge of their duties; (xiii) Giving false or misleading evidence or information deliberately to the House or a Committee thereof, by a Member or a witness; (xiv) Obstructing or molesting any witness during his evidence before a Committee of the House.

11 POWER OF PARLIAMENT TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT 10. Each House of Parliament is the guardian of its own privileges. Courts of law in India have recognised that a House of Parliament (or of a State Legislature) is the sole authority to judge as to whether or not there has been a breach of privilege or contempt of the House in a particular case. 1 The House may punish a person found guilty of breach of privilege of contempt of the House either by reprimand or admonition or by imprisonment for a specified period. In case of its own Members, two other punishments can be awarded by the House, namely, suspension from the service of the House or expulsion. The penal jurisdiction of the House is not confined to its own Members nor to offences committed in its immediate presence, but extends to all contempts of the House, whether committed by Members or any persons who are not Members, irrespective of whether the offence is committed within the House or beyond its walls. The power to punish is the most potent weapon in the hands of a House of legislature which gives reality to privileges of Parliament, emphasises its sovereign character and vindicates its own authority and dignity. Therefore, it has aptly been described as the key-stone of Parliamentary privilege. It is also a tradition of the House that unqualified and unconditional regrets sincerely expressed by the persons guilty of breach of privilege and contempts of the House are accepted by the House and the House normally decides in such cases to best check its own dignity by taking no further notice of the matter. 1 M.S.M. Sharma Vs. Sri Krishna Sinha, A.I.R. 1959, S.C. 395; Homi D. Mistry Vs. Nafisul Hassan, I.L.R. 1957, Bombay

12 FREEDOM OF SPEECH 11. The most important privilege of Members of Parliament is freedom of speech in Parliament. This privilege is embodied in clauses (1) and (2) of Article 105 of the Constitution. This privilege is based (Article 9) on the Bill of Rights, 1689 of the United Kingdom whereby it was declared: "That the freedom of speech, and debate or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament." Thus no action can be taken against a Member of Parliament in any court or before any authority other than Parliament in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any Committee thereof. It is also a breach of privilege to molest a Member or to take any action against him or to threaten action against him on account of anything said by him in Parliament or any Committee thereof. It would be breach of privilege to institute any legal proceedings against a Member in respect of anything said by him in Parliament. 12. A Member cannot also be questioned in any court or by any agency outside Parliament for any disclosures he may make in Parliament. 8

13 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES AND THE PRESS 13. The Press is often called an extension of Parliament. It conveys to the people the substance of Parliamentary legislation and discussion and keeps the people informed of what is happening in Parliament. Though what appears in the Press may influence the Members and provide them with necessary background, the material itself does not form an authentic record of facts and exclusive reliance cannot be placed by a Member of Parliament on the matter as reported. Thus, it has been ruled by successive Presiding Officers that questions, motions and other notices which are merely based on Press reports may not be admitted. The Member may be required to produce some other primary evidence on which his notice is based. Freedom of the Press has not been expressly provided for in the Constitution, but is implicit in the fundamental right of the "freedom of speech and expression" guaranteed to the citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It has been settled by judicial decisions that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of the Press. 14. It is a breach of privilege and contempt of the House to publish expunged proceedings of the House. This question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the Searchlight case wherein the Court ruled that a report of the whole speech including the expunged portion though factually correct, may in law be regarded as perverted and unfaithful and the publication of such a report may, prima facie, be regarded as constituting a breach of privilege of the House Absolute immunity from proceedings in any court of law has been conferred under the Constitution on all personnel connected with the publication of proceedings of either House of Parliament, if such publication is made by or under the authority of House [of Article 105(2)]. This immunity does not, however, extend to the publication of reports of Parliamentary proceedings in newspapers, whether published by a Member of the House or by any other person, unless such publication is expressly authorised by either House. However, constitutional protection has been given to the publication in newspapers or broadcasts by 5 M.S.M. Sharma, Vs. Sri Krishna Sinha, A.I.R. 1959, S.C

14 10 wireless telegraphy of substantially true reports of any proceedings of either House of Parliament, provided the reports are for the public good and are not actuated by malice. The Article 361A of the Constitution provides as follows: "361A. (1) No person shall be liable to any proceedings, civil or criminal, in any court in respect of the publication in a newspaper of a substantially true report of any proceedings of either House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, or, as the case may be, either House of the Legislature, of a State, unless the publication is proved to have been made with malice: Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to the publication of any report of the proceedings of a secret sitting of either House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, or, as the case may be, either House of the Legislature, of a State. (2) Clause (1) shall apply in relation to reports or matters broadcast by means of wireless telegraphy as part of any programme or service provided by means of a broadcasting station as it applies in relation to reports or matters published in a newspaper. Explanation In this Article 'newspaper' includes a news agency report containing material for publication in a newspaper." 16. The above protection has been accorded within the overall limitation that the House has the power to control and, if necessary, to prohibit the publication of its debates or proceedings and to punish for the violation of its orders. Normally, no restrictions are imposed on reporting the proceedings of the House. But when debates or proceedings of the House or its Committees are reported mala fide or there is wilful misrepresentation or suppression of speeches of particular Members, it is a breach of privilege and contempt of the House and the offender is liable to punishment. Further, the press is forbidden to publish any part of the proceedings or evidence given before, or any document presented to Parliamentary Committee before such proceedings or evidence or document has been reported to the House. The Committee of privileges in its 29th Report inter alia considered a question of breach of privilege arising out of the premature publication of the proceedings of the Committee before they were reported to the House by some newspapers. The Committee observed that the proceedings of a Parliamentary Committee are confidential and should not be disclosed or given any publicity unless the same is presented to the House or is otherwise treated as not confidential and therefore constitutes a breach of

15 11 privileges and contempt of the House. Taking a note of the apology tendered by the concerned newspapers, the Committee recommended no further action but warned all concerned that any premature publication or disclosure of the proceedings of the Committee will be dealt with seriously if such occasions arise in future. It is also incumbent on the Press not to disclose the proceedings or decisions of a secret sitting of the House, until the ban on secrecy is lifted by the House. Any such publication or, disclosure is treated as a gross breach of privilege of the House.

16 PRIVILEGE OF FREEDOM FROM ARREST OR MOLESTATION 17. The privilege of freedom from arrest is confined only to civil cases for the duration of the Session and for a period of forty days before and forty days after the Session. The object of this privilege is to ensure the same arrrival and regular attendance of Members in Parliament. The arrest of a Member of Parliament in civil proceedings during the period when he is exempted from such arrest is a breach of privilege and the Member concerned is entitled to release. The privilege of freedom from arrest does not, however, extend to criminal offence of cases of detention under the preventive detention. 18. Although Members do not have any privilege or immunity from arrest on a criminal charge or under any law for preventive detention, the House has a right to receive immediate information of the arrest, detention, conviction, imprisonment and release of a Member. This position is stated in Rules 222A and 222B of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Rajya Sabha. 19. The failure on the part of a judge or a magistrate or other authority to inform the House of the arrest/detention or imprisonment of a Member would constitute a breach of privilege of the House. 20. Another privilege which a Member under custody enjoys is his right to correspond without any let or hindrance with the Chairman/Speaker, Secretary- General or Chairman of a Parliamentary Committee. It is a breach of privilege to withhold any communication addressed by a member in custody to the Chairman/ Speaker, Secretary-General or the Chairman of Parliamentary Committee. 21. No arrest, whether of a member or of a stranger can be made within the precincts of the House without obtaining the prior permission of the Chairman/ Speaker and that too in accordance with procedure laid down by the Home Ministry in this regard. Similarly no legal process, civil or criminal can be served within the precincts of the House without obtaining the prior permission of the Chairman/Speaker whether the House is in Session or not. As a corollary to this rule, the court of law should not seek to serve a legal process, civil or criminal, on Members of Parliament through the Chairman/Speaker or the Rajya Sabha/ Lok Sabha Secretariat. The appropriate procedure is for the summons to be served direct on Members concerned outside the precincts of Parliament, that is, 12

17 13 at their residence or at some other place. A court of law should not also ask the Chairman/Speaker or the Rajya Sabha/Lok Sabha Secretariat to inform a Member about issue of a legal process against him or seek to utilise in any manner the agency of the Chairman/Speaker or of the Secretariats of the House in the Service or execution of a legal process, civil or criminal, against a Member.

18 USE OF HANDCUFFS 22. There is no privilege specifically exempting a Member of Parliament, who is under arrest on a criminal charge, from being handcuffed. The Committee of Privileges of Fifth Lok Sabha in their Nineteenth Report presented to the House on 31st August, 1976, have observed that the instructions regarding handcuffing of prisoners by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs from time to time should be strictly and scrupulously followed by all the authorities concerned of that State Government and Union Territory Administrations and there should ordinarily be no occasion to handcuff prisoners such as Members of Parliament, Members of State Legislatures, peaceful satyagrahis, persons occupying good positions in public life and professionals like jurists, journalists, doctors, writers and educationists. 14

19 POINTS OF PROPRIETY 23. In addition to privileges of Parliament, its Members and Committees, there are certain parliamentary practices, usages and conventions which should be followed by the members, and others. The violation of such parliamentary practices, usages and conventions would not technically constitute a breach of privilege or contempt of the House but such violation would be termed as 'impropriety'. Some typical instances under this category are listed below which, however, are not exhaustive: Giving a premature publicity to various matters connected with the business of the House is an act of impropriety but not a breach of privilege or contempt of the House. If any statement is made on the floor of the House by a Member or Minister which another Member believes to be untrue,incomplete or incorrect, it does not constitute a breach of privilege. If an incorrect statement is made, there are other remedies by which the issue can be decided. A breach of privilege can arise only when the Member or the Minister makes a false statement or an incorrect statement wilfully, deliberately and knowingly. Leakage of budget proposals or official secrets does not form any basis for a breach of privilege. Statement made by Ministers at party meetings are not privileged. No privilege of Parliament is involved if statement on matters of public interest are not first made in the House and are made outside. Such actions are against conventions and propriety but do not constitute any basis on which breach of privilege can be founded. It is not a breach of privilege if documents intended for Members are circulated to the Press and non-members first, but such acts are deprecated. Where the report of a Committee has been presented to the House, its publication by the Press before copies of the report have been made available to Members, is undesirable, but it is no a breach of privilege of the House. 15

20 16 No breach of privilege is involved if a member's speech has not been covered in full or has been covered in a summary form in the Press or over the Radio or T.V. It is also not a breach of privilege if a particular speech is not covered as adequately as other speeches, or is not given prominence. Non-implementation of an assurance given by a Minister on the floor of the House is neither a breach of privilege nor a contempt of the House, for the process of implementation of a policy matter is conditional on a number of factors contributing to such policy. No question of privilege is involved if letters of members are intercepted by censors because censorship is provided under the law. Section 26 of the Post Office Act, 1989, authorises censorship on the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety or tranquility.

21 QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE AND WORKING OF COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES 24. The procedure for dealing with questions of privilege is laid down in Rules 187 to 203 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Rajya Sabha. 25. A question of privilege may be raised in the house only after obtaining the consent of the Chairman. This has been made obligatory so that the time of the house is not taken up by raising a matter which, on the face of it, is not admissible. A member who wishes to raise a question of privilege is, therefore, required to give advance notice in writing to the Secretary General. 26. The question whether a matter complained of, is actually a breach of privilege or contempt of the house is entirely for the House to decide, as the House alone is the master of its privileges. The Chairman, in giving his consent to the raising of a matter in the House as a question of privilege, considers only whether there is a prima facie case for further inquiry and whether it should be brought before the House. In giving his consent, the Chairman is guided by the following conditions prescribed for the admissibility of questions of privilege: not more than one question shall be raised at the same sitting; the question shall be restricted to a specific matter of recent occurrence; and the matter requires the intervention of the House. A question of privilege should thus be raised by a member at the earliest opportunity and should require the interposition of the House. 27. The Chairman, before deciding whether the matter proposed to be raised as a question of privilege requires the intervention of the House and whether he should give his consent to the raising of the matter in the House, may give an opportunity to the person sought to be incriminated to explain his case to the Chairman. When a member seeks to raise a question of privilege against another member, the Chairman before giving his consent to the raising of the matter in the House, always gives an opportunity to the member complained against to place before him or the house such facts as may be germane to the 17

22 18 matter. Likewise when a complaint is made against a Minister for making misleading statements in the House or on other grounds, the Chairman invariably seeks the comments of the Minister concerned before deciding whether a prima facie case exists or not. If a newspaper reports incorrectly the proceedings of the house or comments casting reflections on the House or its members, the Chairman, in the first instance, gives an opportunity to the editor of the newspaper to present his case before giving his consent to the raising of a question of privilege in the House. The Chairman may withhold his consent to raising a question of privilege after the editor or Press correspondent of the newspaper concerned has expressed regrets or published a correction. 28. After the Chairman has given his consent to the raising of a matter in the House as a question of privilege, the member who tabled the notice has, when called by the Chairman, to ask for leave of the House to raise the question of privilege. While asking for such leave, the member concerned is permitted to make only a short statement relevant to the question of privilege. If objection to leave being granted is taken, the Chairman requests those members who are in favour of leave being granted to rise in their places. If twenty five or more members rise accordingly, the House is deemed to have granted leave to raise the matter and the Chairman declares that leave is granted; otherwise the Chairman informs the member that he does not have the leave of the House to raise the matter. 29. A question of privilege is accorded priority over other items in the List of Business. Accordingly, leave to raise a question of privilege is asked for after the questions and before other items in the order paper are taken up. 30. After leave is granted by the House for raising a question of privilege, the matter may either be considered and decided, by the House itself, or it may be referred by the House, on a motion made by any member, to the Committee of Privileges and the House defers its judgement until the report of the Committee has been presented. However, in cases where the House finds that the matter is too trivial or that the offender has already tendered an adquate apology, the House iteself disposes of the matter by deciding to proceed no further in the matter. The Chairman in empowered to refer, suo motu, any question of privilege or contempt to the Committee of Privileges for examination, investigation and report in doing so, the Chairman need not being the matter before the House for consideration and decision as to whether the matter be referred to the Committee.

23 19 The Committee of Privileges examines every question of privilege referred to it and determines with reference to the facts of each case whether a breach of privilege is involved and, if so, the nature of the breach, the circumstances leading to it and make such recommendations as it may deem fit. The Committee of Privileges has the power to send for persons, papers and records and can take evidence of the person involved in the matter and call for any documents concerning the question of privilege under consideration of the Committee. In cases where the facts are in dispute, the Committee of Privileges takes evidence of witness. 31. After the report of the Committee has been presented to the House, the Chairman or any member of the Committee may move that the report be taken into consideration. After the report is taken into consideration, the Chairman or any member of the Committee or any other member may move that the House agrees or disagrees or agrees with amendments, with the recommendations contained in the report. The motion that the report of the Committee of Privileges be taken into consideration is given the same priority as is given to a question of Privilege under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Rajya Sabha. Further action is taken in accordance with the decisions of the House on the report of the Committee.

24 PROCEDURE WHEN A BREACH OF PRIVILEGE IS COMMITTED BY A MEMBER OF THE OTHER HOUSE 32. In 1954 the Committee of Privileges of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha examined the procedure which should be followed in cases where a breach of privilege or contempt of the House was alleged to have been committed by a member of the other House. The Committees after considering all aspects of the matter at their joint sittings outlined the following procedures in such cases: (i) When a question of breach of privilege is raised in any House in which a member, officer or servant of the House is involved, the Presiding Officer shall refer the case to the Presiding Officer of the other House, unless on hearing the member who raises the question or pursuing any document where the complaint is based on a document he is satisfied that no breach of privilege has been committed or the matter is too trivial to be taken notice of, in which case he may disallow the motion for breach of privilege. (ii) Upon the case being so referred, the Presiding Officer of the other House shall deal with the matter in the same way as if it were a case of breach of privilege of the House or of a member thereof. (iii) The Presiding Officer shall thereafter communicate to the Presiding Officer of the House where the question of privilege was originally raised a report about the enquiry, if any and the action taken on the reference. The Committee further observed that if the offending member, officer or servant tenders any apology to the Presiding Officer of the House in which the question of privilege is raised or the Presiding Officer of the other House to which the reference is made, no further action in the matter may be taken after such apology is tendered. 20